Saturday, May 12, 2012

Looking For Mr. Goodbar?


Apropos symbol for the tyranny the pervert privileges movement is becoming.
Recently someone asked me what I thought of gay marriage, and they were shocked to find it's not the "gay" part to which Galt-in-Da-Box objected: You cannot logically or credibly deny the foundations of marriage lie in slavery and human-trafficking. The fact the ownership part of the "sacred tradition" has shifted from the man to the woman with the rise of feminism in modern AmERRORca has done nothing to negate this. I categorically reject the emotionalism-based delusion that one human being has a right to own another and call it "love", "family" or some other such deceit, with the equal revulsion reserved for any other form of enslavement, but don't expect that will stop the Papists from promoting it, nor the Khazakh lawyers who own them from making money off of it. Before you assert what "gay rights" propagandists preface about "it's not about money" as prelude to launching into the lengthy list of financial benefits traditional marriage sufferers supposedly enjoy - VAGINAmoney not being the least of them - let's review: When somebody tells you "it's not about the money", TAKE IT TO THE BANK it's about the fuckin money - and when it comes to marriage you better fucking believe it is ALL about the money! Look at the leaders of this gay marriage push (Or is that Putsch?) and count the Khazars! If it's not about the money, why are all their nazal, whiny, effeminate arguments for it centered around insurance, government handouts, PALimony/patrimony etc? Give that shit to someone else...PLEASE.
Marriage itself, irrespective of the parties involved, is nothing but an excuse to pick the pocket of the wealthiest partner involved...atleast that is what it has degenerated into in our day and time, and using emotionalism to coerce it when and wherever available. That is prominently why women initiate 75% of all divorces, more than half of marriages end in divorce and only 40% of young people are willing to risk it. I am still of the persuasion homosexuality became popular largely due to people seeking a way around the bondage of marriage, however it's become apparent there are fools out there within the gay community who still buy the sentimentality-covered, sugar-coated turd religion has been selling as a donut for millennia.
How does the Whore of Babylon reconcile the fact Adam & Eve were never married, and further, if Adam & Eve got on without it, why can't Adam & Steve? Or Paula & Eve? I really like my truck, but I don't want or need to marry the sonofabitch to have an effective relationship with it!
It's not surprising to discover marriage did not evolve until much later, after the development of religion, because religion was the prototype for politics, and still uses it to this day: It has never been anything but an excuse to manipulate, divide, conquer and control the mass of gullible fools who refuse to research and think for themselves.

By the way, if I was God I would sue religion for fraud, liabel & misrepresentation, and I strongly suspect the reason this hasn't already happened is because the devil owns all the lawyers!

3 comments:

Bob said...

These "perverted privledged" you mention just keep pushing and pushing.

We've al heard about the "straw that broke the camel's back".

The new catchphrase may just be "The push that started a revolution".

texlahoma said...

Damn good point about Adam & Eve not being married, that usually gets glossed over.

Personally I think gays should be able to get married, why should only heterosexuals suffer?

Galt-in-Da-Box said...

Bob - Let's not hold our breath waiting for that revolution: It makes good hawnky-tawnk banter - as you'll readily descern from Vox Day's comment threads - but how many Papist Boomers are going to risk their welfare, SSI, unemployment &/ other bribe from Der Holy Mother Schtaat for a bullet in the head or indefinate torture/detention over abortion, gay marriage etc - especially since most of them are trolling the lavender district when they think nobody's looking?

Tex - QED; I don't have a genuine problem with it legally or politically, but there is no freaking "sacrament" or "sanctity" to a damn business partnership!
It is what it is.
BTW: What a surprise that 0bama suddenly finds a moment of civil liberties clarity during an election year when the majority of his backers are ten-cent billionaire sheenies that putt from the ruff, huh?